society really were; but here Vincent interrupted him, contending that it would be a better way of proceeding for himself to examine the Quakers as to their own creed. He then put a proposal to this effect to the auditors. They agreed to it, and their voice was law.

6

"Vincent, having carried his point, began by asking the Quakers, Whether they owned one Godhead subsisting in three distinct and separate persons?" Penn and his friend Whitehead both asserted that this, delivered as it was by Vincent, was no scripture doctrine. Vincent, in reply, formed a syllogism upon the words There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,' and deduced from these the doctrine of three separate subsistences and yet of but one Deity. Whitehead immediately rejected the term 'subsistence,' as nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, and demanded that their opponents should explain it, as God did not wrap up his truths in heathenish metaphysics, but delivered them in plain language. Upon this, several attempted an explanation; but the sum of all their answers was, that subsistence meant either person or the mode of a substance. To these substitutes William Penn and Whitehead both objected. They urged many texts from Scripture in behalf of their objection, and having done this, they begged leave to ask Vincent one question in their turn, namely, 'Whether God was to be understood in

an abstractive sense from his substance?" But the audience pronounced this to be a point more fit for admiration than dispute."*

Thus was the debate kept up till very late at night, and often with symptoms of tumult and improper conduct on the part of the audience. This consisted almost wholly of the friends of Vincent; and Penn. and Whitehead had no alternative but to submit to such method of controversy as they might impose, and to such indignities as their zeal, heated by the example of their pastor, prompted them to inflict. Several persons discovered great intemperance in this respect, as they "laughed, hissed, and stigmatised the Quakers by various opprobrious names, of which that of Jesuit was exclusively bestowed on William Penn." The meeting finally broke up in a disorderly manner, after Vincent had abruptly left the house, and his party had extinguished the candles. Vincent agreed to meet them on another day, but he could not afterwards be made to fulfil his promise.

It cannot be supposed, that under the circumstances above enumerated, the weight of argument could have had much effect on either side. Against the Quakers in particular, to such a degree were the passions of the people excited, that they were in no condition to hear their grounds of defence, and much less to consider calmly the arguments advanced by them in support

* Clarkson's Life of William Penn, Chap. IV.

of their faith. In this state of things William Penu resolved to come before the public with a written testimony, touching the topics which had been agitated in the late conference with the Presbyterians. To this end he wrote the Sandy Foundation Shaken, in which are discussed in a very masterly manner the three great doctrines of the Trinity, Atonement, and Imputed Righteousness. From Scripture and reason he proved the common notions in regard to these doctrines to be erroneous, traced them to their origin, and showed the mischievous consequences to which they must necessarily lead. Few works are marked with a more rigid logic, a greater clearness of conception, or force of argument.

The Sandy Foundation Shaken produced much excitement when it appeared, and many dignitaries of the established church, especially the bishop of London, professed to be offended at the freedom of the author. "It was then a high crime," says Clarkson, "to defend publicly and openly as in print, the unity of God detached from his trinitarian nature." The usual arguments of intolerance and bigotry were resorted to, and William Penn was sent a prisoner to the Tower for presuming to defend his character against calumny, by showing the public that he had a reason for his faith.

While in prison he was for a time kept in close confinement, and treated with severity, not even being allowed to see his friends. In this situation he was

informed, that the bishop of London had declared he should either recant, or end his days in prison. When Penn heard this, he replied to the person who gave him the intelligence, "All is well; I wish they had told me so before, since the expecting of a release put a stop to some business. Thou mayest tell my father, who, I know, will ask thee, these words; that my prison shall be my grave before I will budge a jot; for I owe my conscience to no mortal man; I have no need to fear; God will make amends for all. They are mistaken in me; I value not their threats nor resolutions, for they shall know I can weary out their malice and peevishness; and in me shall they all behold a resolution above fear, conscience above cruelty, and a baffle put to all their designs by the spirit of patience, the compassion of all the tribulated flock of the blessed Jesus, who is the author and finisher of the faith that overcomes the world, yea, death and hell Neither great nor good things were ever attained without loss and hardships. He that would reap and not labour, must faint with the wind, and perish in disappointments; but an hair of my head shall not fall without the providence of my Father, who is over all." The spirit, which could utter itself in a strain. like this, within the gloomy walls of a prison, was not to be overcome with force, nor intimidated with boasts of power, and threats of suffering.

too.

* See the Preface to an Edition of the Sandy Foundation Shaken, published in London, 1818. p. v.

To render himself unconscious of the weary hours as they passed, Penn applied himself, during his imprisonment, to study and writing. It was here that he wrote one of his most celebrated works, entitled No Cross, No Crown. This would be regarded as a very remarkable performance from any hand, but when we consider that the author was only twenty five years old when he wrote it, that he was closely confined in a prison, and that it was completed under these circumstances within a period of less than six months, we cannot but look on the mind which produced it, as of the highest order, disciplined and matured in a degree very uncommon at that age. The title sufficiently indicates the subject of the work, which was in accordance with his condition and feelings when he wrote. This treatise, at the same time it is an ingenious defence of the religious opinions and conduct of its author, and of the Quakers generally, abounds in practical wisdom and deep thoughts, and discovers a wide range of reading in ancient and modern authors.

He also composed while in prison a small tract called Innocency with her open Face, which was occasioned by a belief, that his views of the trinity, contained in the Sandy Foundation Shaken, had been misunderstood. In this tract he supports anew his objections to the doctrines of satisfaction and imputed righteousness, and of the tripersonal nature of the Deity, but declares, that he means not to deny the divinity of Christ. Neither in this tract, nor in his writings ge